Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Carlos O'Donell]

Every time I speak publicly about glibc I have to explain
that it's not just an ISO C library, we have BSD APIs, GNU APIs, 
POSIX APIs, networking APIs, identity management APIs, OS APIs
(syscall wrappers), etc.

Does "The GNU C Library" encompass the whole of the project?

Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.

Thoughts?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Saturday 26 November 2016 03:04 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Every time I speak publicly about glibc I have to explain
> that it's not just an ISO C library, we have BSD APIs, GNU APIs, 
> POSIX APIs, networking APIs, identity management APIs, OS APIs
> (syscall wrappers), etc.
> 
> Does "The GNU C Library" encompass the whole of the project?
> 
> Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
> Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
> something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
> key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.

Seems reasonable, what's the process to change it other than maybe
adding it in NEWS?

Siddhesh

Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Carlos Eduardo Seo]

On 11/25/16 7:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Every time I speak publicly about glibc I have to explain
> that it's not just an ISO C library, we have BSD APIs, GNU APIs, 
> POSIX APIs, networking APIs, identity management APIs, OS APIs
> (syscall wrappers), etc.
> 
> Does "The GNU C Library" encompass the whole of the project?
> 
> Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
> Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
> something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
> key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

I like the idea. 'GNU Core Libraries' reflects more accurately the scope
of the project.

-- 
Carlos Eduardo Seo
Software Engineer - Linux on Power Toolchain
cseo@linux.vnet.ibm.com

Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> > Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
> > Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
> > something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
> > key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.
> 
> Seems reasonable, what's the process to change it other than maybe
> adding it in NEWS?

Presumably you'd need to agree a change with RMS.  And get 
<https://www.gnu.org/manual/blurbs.html> updated as well as all the 
license notices, documentation etc. (updating documentation wouldn't 
simply be a matter of changing what macros such as @theglibc{} expand to 
because you'd also need to adjust verbs for the change from singular to 
plural).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Thursday 01 December 2016 09:31 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Presumably you'd need to agree a change with RMS.  And get 
> <https://www.gnu.org/manual/blurbs.html> updated as well as all the 
> license notices, documentation etc. (updating documentation wouldn't 
> simply be a matter of changing what macros such as @theglibc{} expand to 
> because you'd also need to adjust verbs for the change from singular to 
> plural).

That sounds like a lot of fun.  I nominate Carlos to do it ;)

Siddhesh

Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/01/2016 11:01 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 
>>> Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
>>> Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
>>> something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
>>> key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.
>>
>> Seems reasonable, what's the process to change it other than maybe
>> adding it in NEWS?
> 
> Presumably you'd need to agree a change with RMS.  And get 
> <https://www.gnu.org/manual/blurbs.html> updated as well as all the 
> license notices, documentation etc. (updating documentation wouldn't 
> simply be a matter of changing what macros such as @theglibc{} expand to 
> because you'd also need to adjust verbs for the change from singular to 
> plural).
> 

Thank you to all of you who have provided feedback.

I'm putting this aside for now. We have 2.25 to release and a website
update to complete. Perhaps after that I'll raise the issue with RMS
to rename the project.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Stan Shebs]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Every time I speak publicly about glibc I have to explain
> that it's not just an ISO C library, we have BSD APIs, GNU APIs,
> POSIX APIs, networking APIs, identity management APIs, OS APIs
> (syscall wrappers), etc.
>
> Does "The GNU C Library" encompass the whole of the project?
>
> Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
> Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
> something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
> key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.
>
> Thoughts?

While the rationale makes sense, "core" is a rather an overloaded
term, and often taken to mean "functionality that is not really
required, but that every programmer probably wants to use", while a C
library includes functions that are specified by the definition of the
language.

Glibc is also inherently C-specific, in that proposals to add Fortran,
or Go, or Common Lisp functions are not likely to be viewed favorably.
:-)

When I describe it, I just say "C library on steroids", and people
seem generally content.

Stan

Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/12/2016 03:42 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Every time I speak publicly about glibc I have to explain
>> that it's not just an ISO C library, we have BSD APIs, GNU APIs,
>> POSIX APIs, networking APIs, identity management APIs, OS APIs
>> (syscall wrappers), etc.
>>
>> Does "The GNU C Library" encompass the whole of the project?
>>
>> Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
>> Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
>> something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
>> key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> While the rationale makes sense, "core" is a rather an overloaded
> term, and often taken to mean "functionality that is not really
> required, but that every programmer probably wants to use", while a C
> library includes functions that are specified by the definition of the
> language.
> 
> Glibc is also inherently C-specific, in that proposals to add Fortran,
> or Go, or Common Lisp functions are not likely to be viewed favorably.
> :-)

Not so.

We have support functions for the C++ runtime to register destructors,
and if we needed anything to better enable other languages we would
consider it.

Fortran, particularly gfortran, makes direct use of libc.so.6 in any compiled
binary.

Likewise clisp depends on libc.so.6 also.

Only Go (go-lang) has the potential to run in a completely contained way
if you avoid any identity management APIs e.g. NSS, which if you do use, then
you are linked to libc.so.6 again.

So in many ways glibc _is_ core for all of the languages you listed (and many
other language interpreters).

I think that any API additions for other languages would be reviewed on
their technical merit e.g. Why aren't they in a language support library? Why
glibc? Commonly used feature by multiple languages?

> When I describe it, I just say "C library on steroids", and people
> seem generally content.

That's a limited view of the library.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.